Sunday, August 13, 2017

American Nazism Is Saturated With Darwinism

Simps just can't stay away.  He left a comment here last night that says:

 steve simelsAugust 12, 2017 at 8:19 PM
The Charlottesville Nazis were clearly inspired by their reading of the works of Charles Darwin.

Well, the relationship between American Nazism and the works of Charles Darwin are, in fact, pretty obvious and something they tout, themselves.  As I wrote one of the myriad of times that idiots like Simels denied that was true, the author of the American Nazi bible, The Turner Diaries,  William L Pierce said he based his racism on Darwinism - Pierce was a working scientist, a materialist and an atheist who hated Judaism and Christianity.  He also relied heavily on the updated Darwinism of Sociobiology as it was giving rise to Dawkins' Evolutionary Psychology.

As I have time I will research other, still living leaders and major influences on the current generation of neo-Nazis and their allies, such as were represented in the Nazi rally in Charlottesville, this weekend.  Here is just one, very explicit, example of that which has been reposted a number of times and cited many times, as well, by Frank Hilliard,  The Alternative Right Belongs to the Darwinians, it begins with a blerb from Darwin, The Decent of Man, which says,

Hillard starts:

There are two views of human development: those of the Darwinians and those of the Progressives. We in the Alternative Right belong to the Darwinians because we believe in science, the scientific method and in the value of observation and analysis. The Progressives, on the other hand, are repelled by their observations of the human condition and attempt to replace science with a belief system they can manipulate. Progressives are Utopianists; while we on the Alt Right are Realists

As Giles Fraser has pointed out, for the boys and men arrested in perpetual adolescence who people the effort, they are primarily post-Christians for whom online gaming and porn are their gate of entry into the largely maladjusted male world of Nazism.

Of course, racism has a long and inglorious history in US politics. But it now has a very new iteration in the nerdy tech-savvy generation of the alt right. Racism 2.0. They don’t speak of eugenics but rather of maintaining “human biodiversity”. And they have a thing about IQ tests showing that white people are cleverer than others.

I know, we’ve heard all this crap many times before. But there is something new here. For in cross-pollinating with the anonymity and viciousness of the internet, with porn and video games replacing Christianity as the common language in which conservatives talk to each other, with openly anti-democratic impulses being justified as rationality, the virus of racism is capable of spreading as never before. The age of the Christian right is over. And something worse is set to take its place.

As a Brit, perhaps Fraser is reticent to point it out or maybe he isn't aware, but as a student of the literature of American scientific racism, its inevitable that what he describes an ideology saturated in Darwinist thought.  Since Darwin's works made their way to this side of the Atlantic, there has been no way to separate out Darwin's natural selection from American racism, even some of those fundamentalists who hated the name of Darwin, nevertheless, mouthed his ideas in their advocacy of racism.  Every time they advocated eugenics, they were advocating ideas inspired by natural selection but, also, ideas that he, himself endorsed and promoted as science.  Eugenics is applied Darwinism, its inventor, Francis Galton explicitly said his invention (I think he'd say "discovery") of eugenics was based on his reading of On the Origin of Species.

As I have pointed out many times, with quotes from Charles Darwin and his closest inner circle, especially Thomas Huxley, believed that racial warfare which would result in the extermination of entire races by those they said were superior - and they weren't shy to identify those as Northern Europeans - was inevitable and that the results would be a superior species of humans, in time.  That is explicit in The Descent of Man, in Darwin's letter to G. A. Gaskell, in documents like Huxley's infamous Emancipation Black and White.  All of it based on Darwin's theory that wasn't evolution, it was Natural Selection.   If American Nazis wanted to they could find explicit support for genocide in Darwin because it's there, right in plain sight for anyone to read.  Darwin predicted that a genocidal race war would result in a healthier crop of survivors who had proved their superiority by killing the losers.  He said so, explicitly, over and over again.

In a piece by, Graem Wood, a prep school classmate  of the main speaker at the Nazi rally this weekend, Richard Spencer, he said:

Spencer mocked us on his blog, saying that the “Brooks Brothers Brigade” had turned on one of its own. He scoffed at our having chosen refugees—nonwhite and non-Christian—as the recipients of our largesse. We had reacted, he wrote, by deciding “to commit civilizational suicide even harder than before … If this episode doesn’t express the end stage of wasp decline, I don’t know what does.” His fans concurred. “I suppose from a Darwinian point of view we have to accept that most Whites are no longer fit for survival,” reads the post’s second-most-popular comment. “We need a Western Purge, a Noah’s Ark moment where the traitors came [sic] be thrown to the niggers to be raped and murdered.”

that kind of talk is not uncommon on the American Nazi web.

I can give links and citations to everything I said above in primary documents from all named, just about the entire text would be red with links if I did that.  You can easily find where I document it by searching my blog.  Simps and his play-left buddies have got nuthin'.

Update:  Wood's Atlantic article about Richard Spencer says:

Spencer’s writing kept appearing, advancing ever more extreme opinions in ever more obscure journals. In 2008, he began popularizing the term alt-right. On Facebook, he posted images of himself with John Derbyshire—a polymathic, often charming writer who was fired from National Review in 2012 for racism—and Richard Lynn, an English psychologist who has argued that East Asians are slightly smarter than whites, who are in turn much smarter than blacks. Spencer hosted Ron Paul, then not yet widely known to have published antiblack screeds in the 1980s and ’90s, at his discussion club.

I am loathe to give links, you can read about the support for his racism Derbyshire derives from Darwin at the Nazi site, V Dare.   Richard Lynn's scientific racism, as well, rests on the theory of natural selection, you can find support for his racism, also citing Darwin in such cess pools as "Occidental Quarterly".   Ron Paul found it necessary in his political career to downplay his own belief in evolution and left a smear of fudged answers on the issue.

As they distance themselves from the fundamentalists, the American Nazis will be far more willing to cite natural selection, Darwinism and Darwinian eugenics than the previous generation of racists.


  1. It is, of course, telling that the word "anti-Semitism" appears nowhere in your latest screed, Sparkles.

    You're not fooling anybody.

    1. I answered your comment, "anti-Semitism" appeared nowhere in it.

      Geesh, Simps, sometimes you make it too easy to point out what an idiot you are.

  2. In case you hadn't heard, the Charlottesville Nazis were chanting "Jews will not replace us."

    I'm sure that was a reference to Darwin, however.

    1. The quotes I read in the media quoted them as saying, "YOU will not replace us."

      Why didn't you mention anti-Semitism in your comment that motivated this if it was so central to what they said.

      As it was, it was a Black Lives Matter protest that was attacked, killing and injuring people. You sort of seemed to miss that that Black People, Latinos, Muslims etc. were the target of the Nazis. You have blinders whenever that's the case.

      And, again, why didn't you mention anti-Semitism in your comment that I posted, in full?

  3. Because it was so fucking obvious that's what I was talking about that a blind man could have seen it with a cane.

    As I said before, you're not fooling anybody.

    1. Do you think the Nazis should have been banned, that Nazi propaganda should be banned and it internet traffic blocked? Because I do and have advocated that for years. I have done so on the basis of all of their stands, including Jew-hating and Jew-baiting as well as all of their other forms of bigotry and their attacks on egalitarian democracy.

      Let me guess, you think Nat Hentoff was right on that kind of stuff, don't you.

      I answered what you said, would it have been OK with you if they'd not mentioned Jews but just Black People, Muslims, Latinos, etc? Because your response to what I wrote would make a reasonable person to suspect you would be.

  4. Reminds me of the dialogue in"Annie Hall" where Woody Allen is convinced he's met an anti-Semite because th3man asks "Did you? Did you?", although Allen pronounces it "Did Jew? Did Jew?"

    Besides, being antisemitic would not conflict with Darwinism. One feeds and justifies the other.

    1. The Darwin Defenders use pretty much the same argument that the Hitler apologists like David Irving do, that unless you come up with a piece of paper with Hitler's signature on it saying, "Kill all the Jews" that means they don't have any responsibility for what their words led to. Only in Darwin's case, both in things he said in scientific publications and in the things he cited from Haeckel, Gregg and others, it is undeniable that he said that the future racial genocides in which there would be total erradication of some races which would both prove their killers were superior and that the genocide would result in an improved human species. He advocated the template for the Nazis, they just filled in the names of groups to kill. That people like Eugen Fischer filled it in with people in German East African colonies thirty years before the Nazis started killing people in Europe doesn't signify for much.

      I wasn't planning on writing on this topic until I saw what Simps left here this morning and, since I'd bothered to look, I knew he and dolts and liars like Freki didn't know the first thing about what we're up against. I went and looked, it would seem that some of their buddies might realize that I don't say these thing without being able to back it up.